Wikipedia talk:U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Flag

Hm, I'm not sure it's a great idea to have the Confederate Battle Flag on the template. It carries a good bit of negative baggage for some modern Southerners. What do others here think? -- Infrogmation 17:17, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a "modern Southerner" and I think it's just fine. However, if you're going to take it down, replace it with something else. Don't leave it blank. Mike H 19:42, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
The Stars and Bars have been known to cause great offense, even when it isn't intended to insult or demean. For me personally, it doesn't represent the South (then again, neither does a map including Oklahoma and Delaware :/ ), for some people, it's a symbol of heritage, and for some people, it's a gross insult no matter what the context. It's those people who are going to be knee-jerk insulted by its very presence on the template -- and there are a significant number of those -- who might be turned off from the project by its presence here, who should be taken into consideration. We have no reason to cause them stress by subjecting them to what they regard as an insult, so we shouldn't. All in all, however, an icon-sized flag is a minor issue. -- Seth Ilys 20:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Communities

Items on Wikipedia:US cities without articles might be good for COTW. Maurreen 13:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations

No current nominations... Maybe we should lower the number of votes required to stay on. The project doesn't do anyone any good if there are no articles to work on. Tuf-Kat 00:43, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

You can renominate a failed objection. Mike H 00:30, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Could, but I have no reason to suspect they'll make it this time. I'll round up a couple to stimulate thought, at least. Tuf-Kat 00:43, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
The whole "needs _ votes" is actually not even supposed to be there the first week. The point of that is to drum up double the support for next week, so the nominations are supposed to be there for a minimum of two weeks. Mike H 00:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, really -- I never understood the system exactly, I confess... If it requires double the number of votes week to week, then doesn't that disadvantage articles that get a lot of initial support? If there's an outpouring of love for Molly Hatchet this week, for example, and nine people vote for it, but ten vote for Graceland, then nine more people will have to vote the week after, right? Whereas if stupid St. Mary's City, Maryland only get one vote this week (mine), it needs only one more to keep going. So instead of the popular candidate Molly Hatchet continuing, it gets dropped and St. Mary's City is kept? Is that right? Tuf-Kat 00:59, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Blah. I only put the voting thing in place so there would be a time to take off the stagnant nominees. I never was a fan of "there are 45 votes now, please vote 5 more votes by next week" because it was drawn out too long. Mike H 01:01, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
It does seem needlessly complicated. How about we just drop anything that doesn't get say, eight votes in three weeks, or isn't chosen for three months, or something. Tuf-Kat 01:06, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
I could agree with eight votes in three weeks. Want to change the wording on the page? Mike H 01:07, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Okay. Tuf-Kat 01:12, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dead?

I haven't been coming to this notice board (or any notice board, or COTW) for a few weeks, got a little burned out, and it seems that no one's managing it. Should we nuke it and start clean? I think there's still a possible chance for this. --Golbez 22:10, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe. I think we should make it more of a two-week or month-long colloboration, though. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 22:13, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
That'd probably be best. Our last collaborations have been good but still have much room for potential. Mike H 22:15, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vfd

On 20 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/U.S. Southern wikipedians' notice board/USSCOTW for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 01:34, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USCOTW

Since the Southern United States COTW is reopened how about the entire U.S. collaboration? Falphin 03:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that collaboration should be reopened and this one shouuld be closed as to not split support, and obvioulsy the entire United States collaboration would have more broad topics than just the south. Phoenix2 19:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia has room for more than one U.S. COTW, especially with the number of Americans editing. One reason the general U.S. COTW was even less successful than the Southern is probably because it was perceived as too generic by many American Wikipedians. Other regional U.S. COTWs (Northeast, Midwest, West) could probably also be established. Instead of a perhaps-too-bland general U.S. COTW, one focused on American history might find more success. But I think the most important thing for a COTW-type process is probably still to find topics for each COTW of relatively general interest.--Pharos 04:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • So instead create a UShistory COTW. That would be interesting. I already started the US Northern COTW before I read you comments. Falphin 14:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There are topics outside the realm of history, though. Why are you so against a Southern collaboration? I hate to sound mean, but if you're against it, why are you here? Mike H 16:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not against a South collaboration I just felt that it might get more interest with a U.S. collaboration. Also, when I said add a history U.S. collab I meant that we would remove the less popular North collab not the South. Falphin 16:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • My mistake. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Mike H 16:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voter template

Is there a voter template for this article? Falphin 14:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not much collaboration

Well, I have to say that the first new USSCOTW, Nashville sit-ins, was something of a disappointment. I got together some resources and put them on the talk page, so that people wouldn't have to go to the library, but still no one actually collaborated. If you look at the history, you'll see there's only one contributor so far. Granted the subject was somewhat specific, and maybe not of interest to everyone, but it still doesn't bode well for the health of this project to have no collaboration whatsoever, not even a spellcheck or a "Hi" on the talk page. Kaldari 3 July 2005 06:03 (UTC)

  • I really think the problem was it was much too specific, one campaign in the history of one city, that only played a relatively small part in the overall Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. I think we should try to go as broad-interest as possible on these.--Pharos 3 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
  • I'm a Nashvillian, and I would have contributed, but by the time I found this community, the collaberation had already changed! Over the next few weeks I'm going to do research on it using sites like this one, and hopefully it'll make up for anything that the article had missed out on, threefold. Toothpaste 4 July 2005 10:32 (UTC)
  • A lot of the time it is hard to get a lot of collaboration on an article on these smaller COTws. Often times one or two people will do the article or sometimes no one. I do hope eventually more will collaborate as such that happened at the Welsh people for the UKCOTW. 12.220.47.145 8 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

[edit] Name switch

I switched names and never put the Collaboration back on my watchlist, so I forgot about it for a week. Hurricane Dennis is coming my way so if I'm not here on Sunday (which I probably won't be), will someone put up the new COTW? (Thanks to whoever did the last one). Mike H (Talking is hot) July 8, 2005 15:47 (UTC)

[edit] It's happening again

History of South Carolina is the template and that's it. Is anyone going to contribute? Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • It has a week. I have to make edits to Henry Fonda since I started that collaboration. I think it should be noted that the main COTW didn't do so well last week, and probably won't improve a ton until August. People are on vacation(as I will be tommorow). Falphin 18:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)